Dorfer and Dorfer

In *Dorfer and Dorfer*, the husband applied to have the wife's response, which sought orders under section 79A of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) and an extension of time to review previous orders, summarily dismissed. The wife's response was made in relation to consent orders made by the Family Court of Australia on 31 May 1993 concerning property settlement.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the wife's applications for orders under section 79A and for an extension of time to review the 1993 consent orders should be summarily dismissed. This required the Court to consider the principles governing summary dismissal, including the inherent power of the Court to dismiss applications that cannot succeed, are frivolous or vexatious, or constitute an abuse of process. The Court also considered the relevant rules of court and the discretionary nature of such a remedy, emphasising that summary dismissal is a serious measure to be exercised rarely and sparingly.

Justice Watts applied the principles established in cases such as *Bigg & Suzi* and *Lindon v The Commonwealth (No. 2)*, which stipulate that for an application to be summarily dismissed, it must be clear on the face of the opponent's documents that the claim cannot succeed. The Court noted that a mere indication that a case appears weak is insufficient. In this instance, the Court examined the material filed by the wife, including affidavits and financial statements, as well as the husband's Form 7 and the wife's affidavit sworn in February 1993. The Court found that the material presented to the Court by the husband in 1993, upon which the consent orders were made, had not been provided to the wife. This lack of procedural fairness, potentially a breach of natural justice, was a significant factor. Consequently, the Court concluded that the husband had not demonstrated that the wife's applications could not possibly proceed.

Accordingly, the husband's application for summary dismissal of the wife's response was dismissed. The wife's costs in this matter were reserved, and the parties were granted leave to seek a listing for a two-day final hearing before a Judicial Registrar.